MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Giant planet formation from disk instability; cooling and heating

2003· preprint· en· W1747979669 on OpenAlexaff
Lucio Mayer, James Wadsley, Thomas Quinn, Joachim Stadel

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtoplanetPhysicsPlanetAstrophysicsAdiabatic processOrbital speedInstabilityProtoplanetary diskOrbital eccentricityGas giantGiant planetPlanetary systemAstronomyExoplanetMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of high resolution SPH simulations of the evolution of gravitationally unstable protoplanetary disks. We report on calculations in which the disk is evolved using a locally isothermal or adiabatic equation of state (with shock heating), and also on new simulations in which cooling and heating by radiation are explicitly modeled. We find that disks with a minimum Toomre parameter $< 1.4$ fragment into several gravitationally bound protoplanets with masses from below to a few Jupiter masses. This is confirmed also in runs where the disk is given a quiet start, growing gradually in mass over several orbital times. A cooling time comparable to the orbital time is needed to achieve fragmentation, for disk masses in the range $0.08-0.1 M_{\odot}$. After about 30 orbital times, merging between the bound condensations always leads to 2-3 protoplanets on quite eccentric orbits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→